Ethics and Good Practices

JMBE as an international journal of excellence is inspired by the ethical code of publications prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aimed to editors, referees and authors.

Duties of Authors

  • Originality and plagiarism: The authors of the manuscripts sent to JMBE guarantee that the submitted work is original and that the manuscripts themselves neither contain extracts from other authors, nor contain other fragments from written works that were previously published (by the same authors). Furthermore, the authors confirm the veracity of the data, namely that the empirical data have not been altered to verify hypotheses.
  • Multiple Publications and /or repetitive: the author should not publish articles that repeat the same search results in more than a scientific journal. The simultaneous proposal of the same contribution to multiple scientific journals is to be considered ethically improper and reprehensible.
  • List of sources: the author should always provide the correct indication of the sources and contributions mentioned in the article.
  • Authorship: In terms of the authorship of the work, the authors guarantee that there is the inclusion of those individuals who have made a scientifically significant and intellectual contribution to the conceptualization and planning of the work and have also made a contribution to the interpretation of the results and the actual writing of the article. At the same time, the authors have been hierarchically organized in accordance to their level of responsibility and their respective roles.
  • Access and Retention: if the editors deem it appropriate, the authors of the articles should make available also the sources or the data on which research is based, so that they can be kept for a reasonable period of time after the publication and possibly make it accessible.
  • Conflict of interest and disclosure: all authors are required to declare explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest that may have influenced the results obtained or the interpretations proposed. Authors must also indicate any research funding agencies and / or the project from which arise the article.
  • Errors in published articles: when an author in her/his article identifies a significant error or inaccuracy, it shall promptly inform the magazine editors and provide them with all the information required to list the relevant corrections on the bottom of the article itself.
  • Responsibility: all the authors accept responsibility for what they have written. The authors pledge that they have revised the most up-to-date and relevant materials about the subject matter, thereby taking into account the dual nature of different currents of thought.
  • Human studies and subjects: For human subjects, the author should ensure that the work described has been conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Consequently, manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants should include the description of the protocol employed to collect human data and a statement from the authors confirming that the appropriate ethical approval has been obtained. This statement should encompass whether informed consent was obtained, whether the shared information might potentially identify an individual, or if, conversely, the acquired information is entirely anonymous. -Example: The authors confirm that data collection for the research was conducted anonymously, and there was no possibility of identifying the participants. -Example: The authors confirm that the research obtained informed consent from participants, explaining the treatment of the provided data. -Example: This research has been approved by the ethics committee of the institution… (xxx). Written consents should be retained by the author, and copies of these consents, or evidence of their acquisition, must be made available to JMBE upon request.

Duties of Referees

  • Contribution to the editorial decision: peer review is a procedure that helps editors to make decisions on the proposed articles and also allows the author to improve the contribution submitted for publication. The referees are committed to performing a critical, honest, constructive, and unbiased review of both the scientific and the literary quality of the written work, i.e. based on their individual skills and knowledge.
  • Respect of time: the referee who does not feel adequate to the task proposed or who are not able to finish the evaluation of the proposed contribution in the scheduled time is required to promptly notify the coordinators. The referees are committed to evaluating the works in the minimum possible time so as to respect the stated deadlines.
  • Confidentiality: each assigned reading manuscript should be considered as confidential. Therefore, these texts should not be discussed with other people without the explicit permission of the editors.
  • Objectivity: the peer-review must be conducted in an objective manner. Any personal judgment about the authors of contributions is considered inappropriate. The referees are required to give adequate reasons for their judgments. The referees will submit a complete and critical report with adequate references according to JBME review protocol and the established public norms for referees, especially if it suggested the rejection of the article. They are obliged, moreover, to advise the editors whether substantial sections of the work have been previously published, or if they are being revised by another publication.
  • Text display: the referees undertake to accurately indicate the bibliographical references of fundamental works possibly neglected by the author. The referee must also report to the editors any similarities or overlaps between the text received and other works known to her/him.
  • Conflict of interest and disclosure: confidential information or information obtained during the peer-review process must be considered confidential and may not be used for personal purposes. The referee shall not accept in reading articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to previous collaboration or competition with the author and /or her/his institution.

Duties of Editors

  • Decisions on publication: The editors ensure the selection of the most qualified referees and scientifically specialists to issue an expert and critical appreciation of the manuscript, with the least possible level of bias.
  • Honesty: the editors evaluate the articles submitted for publication only on the basis of the scientific merit of the content, without discrimination of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, political opinion of the authors.
  • Confidentiality: the editors and members of the working group undertake not to disclose information relating to the articles submitted for publication to other people other than the author, the referees and the editor. Editors and the Editorial Committee are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscripts, their authors and their referees, in such a way that anonymity preserves the intellectual integrity of the whole process.
  • Conflict of interest and disclosure: the editors undertake not to use in their research content of articles submitted for publication without the written consent of the author.
  • Respect of time: The editors are responsible for compliance with the time limits for reviews and publication of accepted papers, to ensure rapid dissemination of its results. They reliably undertake to comply with the published deadlines (up to 30 days in accepting/rejecting from the receipt of the manuscript in the review platform) and maximum of 100 days from the beginning of the process of scientific review by experts. Also, manuscripts will not remain accepted in endless waiting lists without being published in the following issue. This will prevent JMBE from having a bank of manuscripts on a waiting list.

Complaints and Appeals Procedure

Editors have very broad discretion in determining whether an article is an appropriate fit for their journal. Many manuscripts are declined with a very general statement of the rejection decision. These decisions are not eligible for formal appeal unless the author believes the decision to reject the manuscript was based on an error in the review of the article, in which case the author may appeal the decision by providing the Editor with a detailed written description of the error they believe occurred. If no error has occurred, the Editor’s decision to reject is final.

Actions against malpractice

Where suspicions of misstatements or negligence arise, editors will ideally address such issues after submission and prior to publication. The editors will investigate the suspicions and reports made and reach a conclusion based on those investigations.

When editors suspect that there may be an ethical violation in relation to a submitted article or an allegation relating to a submitted article, the editors will raise the issue with the corresponding author (s). The editors will seek an explanation and, where necessary, the provision of evidence to support that explanation. At this point, editors can be satisfied that there have been no ethical violations. However, if not, the editors will continue to investigate the matter.

If the editors decide that there is no problem, the publication can take place or continue (as the case may be) in the normal way.

If the editors decide that there has been an unethical practice, the editors can reject the document. If an unethical practice is discovered after the article has been published, the editors will consider whether retraction of the article or, in very rare cases, deletion is appropriate.